Bug 209008
| Summary: | security/p5-Dancer2-Plugin-Auth-Extensible-Provider-DBIC: Fix plist | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | Henk van Oers <hvo.pm> | ||||||||
| Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody) <ports-bugs> | ||||||||
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||||||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | lme | ||||||||
| Priority: | --- | Keywords: | patch | ||||||||
| Version: | Latest | Flags: | hvo.pm:
maintainer-feedback+
|
||||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
Comment on attachment 169622 [details]
The diff
sorry wrong diff
Created attachment 169623 [details]
The diff
OK, my subject line and attachment were a mess, but is it OK now? Yes. But you probably need to mask the files with @comment to avoid stage-qa errors caused by staged files not listed in plist. ===> Checking for items in STAGEDIR missing from pkg-plist Error: Orphaned: %%SITE_PERL%%/Dancer2/Plugin/Auth/Extensible/Provider/README.pod Error: Orphaned: %%PERL5_MAN3%%/Dancer2::Plugin::Auth::Extensible::Provider::README.3.gz ===> Checking for items in pkg-plist which are not in STAGEDIR Created attachment 170737 [details]
The new diff with @comment
Also a timestamp in the distinfo.
The new QA tests and 'make check-plist' and deleting/installing are OK.
Thanks for the report. Question, jumping from no PORTREVISION to PORTREVISION=2. Did you mean PORTREVISION=1 ? (In reply to Vladimir Krstulja from comment #6) The first patch was wrong and has number 1. This one is patch number 2. But you can call it the first good one :-) But it was not committed. PORTREVISION does not track suggested patches, it's not a "patch number", but the state of the port in the HEAD. You increase PORTREVISION when you make significant changes to the port resulting with different contents of the built package, but the version of the software the pkg is packaging remains unchanged. Maybe I'm nitpicking, a committer will correct me, I just like things to be by the numbers, hence my observation. I am no longer interested in this port. Who wants to take over? Henk, I'm sorry feel this way. I hope it's not something I said. :) In the interest of properly documenting this issue, I wouldn't call it FIXED. But before it's closed, I'd like to ask committers if your latest patch can be applied anyway. Dmitry? Please note PORTREVISION was bumped from 0 to 2. (In reply to Vladimir Krstulja from comment #10) It's in the tree now with PORTREVISION 1 My apologies, indeed it is. I wonder why the commit hook never updated this bug report. For the reference: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=416157 |
Created attachment 169622 [details] The diff The README is not a provider.